About your Search

20130801
20130831
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
-span: do you think people would be surprised you voted for george bush in 1980? >> guest: i suppose so because i think the most surprised person would probably be president bush. write to what what you think you'd be surprised? >> guest: well i think most presidents get sensitive about the post and "newsweek" as well and he had his issues with us but i think any president does. but i suspect he would not think i voted for him. c-span: give us a thumbnail sketch of the post today. how many newspapers and television stations? how big is said and what is the revenue on a yearly basis? >> guest: we are about ad 1.6 million in annual revenues and the company holds mainly "the washington post" and we have a small newspaper the herald and half of the international "herald tribune" and may have "newsweek" and six television stations and 1.5 million cable connections, and we also have -- which is our medium of "the washington post" web site. c-span: are you still chairman of the executive committee? -- committee. >> guest: i am. c-span: how long were you chairman of "the washington post"? >> gu
into the tony blare's comments with george bush on the microphone? oh, assad is like honey? what were they talking about? they seemed to like him. >> i don't recall that one. i recall the explaytive. referring to the g8 meeting in 2006 when -- during the israel hezbollah war, and bush leaned over to blare and whatever he called him, he said, you know, if we request get syria to stop this, put a four letter explaytive there, that will calm the situation, and what was interesting about, you know, that comment, and bush did not like that after 2003, 2004 particularly, and i asked bashar about that comment, and i said, what do you think of that comment by bush caught on tape? again, half expecting him to say, oh, you know, typical this, typical all that sort of stuff, he said, i love it. i love it because that means they are thinking about me. they are worried about me. that is part of syria foreign policy is having some sort of leverage. it's a weak country military militarily. the leverage is through the support of hezbollah, iran, support of hamas and palestinian territories. that's th
have claimed and therefore george bush could say don't pay into it, simply give each person the fund and they can invest on their pension. if you monetize your deferred compensation, that is a terrible idea. it further damages the devotee of people to have social and there is a link to having a social wage is that it dramatically is important for the society because then people start to see of objectively the interest is united. one of the great tracks to american history is rather than to countercyclical spending through the social expenditure, it is always been done through the military spending. you spend militarily through bringing the economy back to life. that was the whole post world war golden age etc we've so in that sense one has to confront this idea because it is easy to do the spending on the military because it is already a hari article society in the military and encampment that the more you begin to feel objectively or ties with other people are there you might be able to create a political movement where people subjectively then relate to the common agenda and i thin
and compare it for us in modern history, current history for example contrasted with the way george w. bush took this nation to the war. >> if president bush took america to war quite quickly and didn't nurture a bipartisan consensus in some ways he used it around for the hid. ki wasn't able to persuade other countries, many other countries with the exception of britain and a few others that it was worth fighting and so america more or less went in to hit by himself. the book tells the story of an incredible effort over the course of two years to build a domestic consensus in favor of internationalism and ultimately intervention and he was prepared to use other countries as proxy's by allowing the brits and the french. he was prepared to take this kind and roosevelt was criticized almost as much he felt he was going too fast. he felt he was going too slowly. he did it carefully and slowly. that is the reaction to the events and get. when you step back and look at the whole run there is a direction as kurt says he knew where he wanted to end up but he wanted to do it in a way that took the c
, and compare it with what current history contrast to the way george debut bush took them but different conflicts of different styles but if they took him to work quite quickly she could nurture more into in some ways he would beat them around the headed cannot persuade many other countries that it was worth fighting so roosevelt is the opposite this book tells the story of this incredible effort although subtle over the course of two years to build the of bipartisan domestic consensus in adults and early intervention and prepared to use other countries to feed from behind -- leave them behind and was prepared to take his time. in fact, the result was criticized almost as much to felt he was going too fast period he did it it. >> is a very clear direction but he wanted to do is no way that that the country did not into the ward / e merge united and ready for the fight. >> again and 11 came at the beginning. >> and pearl harbor helped. it totally destroyed isolationism in the united states at that time. but by then roosevelt had marginalized the bodies through the danish with the decisio
, therefore, george bush could say, well, don't pay into it. simply give each potential -- each person a fund. you monetize your deferred compensation. it's a terrible idea. it further damages the ability of people to have a social thing. and by the way, the link to having a social wage is that it's dramatic create important for society. -- dramatically important for society. because then people start to see objectively their interests are united. you know, one of the great tricks of american history is rather than do countercyclical spending through social expenditure, countercyclical spending in america has always been done through military spending. you spend militarily to bring the economy back to life. that was the whole post-war golden age, etc. so in that sense one has to confront this idea, you know, because it was easy to do countercyclical spending with the military because it's already a hierarchical society, you know, in military encampments. but society is not hierarchical, and the more you begin to feel objectively that your ties with other people are there, you might be able to
and much more popular than george bush but that glory is fleeting because they are in an untenable situation where their success is an immediate unfavorable referendum that everybody before them, do they have certain personality qualities and ambitions and visions that make them suspect by their peers. sort of like this 19th century western figure that we see in 20th century films where it's high noon, ethan edwards, the magnificent seven, the man is shot liberty balance. we bring these people in and they are suspect figures and we all want shane to do something to get rid of the -- but it's better he walks out the door. it's better that high noon will kaine takes the bag and throws it down and says i've had enough. whether we like it or not it didn't end very well. themistocles committed suicide in persia. belisarius ended up as a beggar on the streets of constantinople humiliated at his emperor. sherman was called crazy and called a terrorist. he spent most of his post-war career trying to defend what it in a very effective way but he wasn't popular like grant or matthew ridgway.
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)